Originally posted by Matt Black: Hmmm...your argument does not actually amount to a contest of "SS - v - Church Authority", more your argument seeks to pit the OT against the NT in that, if you are really saying that the Bereans, armed 'solely' with their LXX, trump the Apostle Paul, then you are saying that we can also, armed with the same LXX (complete with the horrid Aprocrypha) trump all the Pauline corpus of the NT which doesn't align itself with our interpretation of the said LXX. That kind of approaches 'doing a Marcion in reverse'.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Hmm...interesting point, particularly the last sentence. What's interesting was that the Ebionites were basically that--'Marcionites in reverse'. The Ebionites didn't accept the orthodox Christian claims about Christ (particularly Paul's teachings) because of their rigid adherence to (their interpretation of) the OT.
This brings us to the real distinction between the Bereans and the
unbelieving Thessalonians in Acts 17. Both groups (being Jews--17:1,10) already had the Scriptures, and Paul was reasoning with them both
from the Scriptures (v.2) to show Jesus was the Christ. He (and the other apostles) were presenting a
new (at least to the hearers)
interpretation of the OT Scriptures centered around and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
Some in Thessalonica were persuaded, but the Jews that were not stirred up a mob against Paul. The Bereans are then called noble minded
primarily because "they received the [Apostle's] word with all readiness". They did indeed search the OT Scriptures (from which Paul was reasoning), but it was this new Apostolic interpretation of their familiar Scriptures that they received with readiness and for which primarily they were commended. I imagine that the Jews that were not persuaded, ie that rejected the apostolic
interpretation of the OT, still maintained that
they were the ones who were going "by the Book". To this day Jewish apologists argue
from (OT) Scripture that Christ was
not the Messiah.